This black series is one of my favorite. We shot it in our Dallas studio which meant we had a different but more unique on camera talent base to draw from.

We wanted attractive people, but as realistic as possible. In LA, we'd usually cast through a dozen agencies, see way too many people, probably get lost in the process and then fight our way back to the original creative brief.

In Dallas, the talent range is more limiting, but for this project, I think better, because we went to all types of sources, swim clubs, schools, pro, semi-pro, amateur sports leagues and found the talent we wanted that was realistic and comfortable in their sport.

The talent also didn't have the pre disposed thought of "I have to look this way".

I'm fortunate in that my partner is the producer, usually does the styling, either does makeup and/or directs the makeup so when we review the talent she knows how a subject is going to look in final as she will construct the look.

For the lighting, I wanted a textured look, so we used profotos on some but for all the images I have this older set of photogenic monoblocks. Have about 30 of them (obviously didn't use them all for this) and they're amazing lights in that the power is on a sliding type reostat.

We drop a 1/4 or 1/2 spun over the reflectors to keep from blowing the highlights, or do get less/more specular.

I also have crew handhold lights to follow talent or to get an exact highlight without a lot of moving stands and forcing the talent into one exact place.

I went with my P30+ and Contax which probably doesn't seem like the right camera for this type of project considering 1/2 the images had fast movement and with my contax you have to slightly anticipate the action as there is a slight delay.

I think it actually works well to "plan" one frame rather than 10 fps, but everyone works differently.

I also wanted to work the files deep and have a oversharp look and I think CCD's and no AA filter pulls this off easier than modern cmos. Once again, my opinion only, but I do like the look of CCD cameras.

It's interesting that today with the economic pressures on a project and the client anticipation of the on set turn around time of digital I think the photographer and in this case photographer/dp/director's role is more about time management than anything else.

I know the look is important, but with a list of 20 setups, you have to get it right and move on, so in this case reliable tethering was a must.

Just to note, I'm really format agnostic. I use what I use, just because at the time I think it's right. When I'm working on the computer I listen to the ASC podcasts which features DP's and their latest movies.

It's always interesting to me what cameras, or film/digital format they chose. Sometimes they have technical reasons, sometimes it's a format that forced upon them, but usually there is no exact logical reason they select a camera.

Usually under high pressure, especially economic pressure, the camera selection is to use what is trusted and comfortable and maybe that's why I shot this with my Contax/Phase.

Sorry to go off topic, but this week we finished shooting a video project of a high pressured, high profile news/political analyst with two RED 1's and 1 Scarlet. Our studio manager was processing out the clips and shows me how much better the Scarlet footage looks.

I'm never convinced as the R1's I love, I understand them, they have t-stops on the lenses, they don't have that glossy, over sensitive touch screen thing of the Scarlet and redundant buttons.

BC, I love the work and the look, but I'm wondering why you think it has anything to do with CCD over CMOS? As far as I know there are no medium format CMOS sensors on the photography market today. There are so many other factors involved that make a bigger difference in the look of a photo, AA filter, color filter tuning, and of course sensor size. I'd expect to see great midtone response from medium format of any kind.

Like everyone for the last few years due to compressed production and shooting parallel production with video, we've shot a lot of 35mm.

That's fine, the client's paid, etc. etc., but when I realized that the samples that client's referenced and get us working were not from most of the recent projects, they were projects a few years ago when we had a fraction more time to work, a fraction more time to craft the light and using (cough, cough) slower cameras that required a little more effort in front and behind the lens.

With the amount of images that are thrown in front of people everyday, as a profession we run the risk of becoming a commodity, or worse where a photo is like a streaming song. You hear it but you don't invest in buying it.

So, maybe it's just me, but I thought I should dance with who brung me. (Sorry for the Texas term).

It's interesting. Everyone now says equipment doesn't matter to a client, or subject, but just got this e-mail from the client (the names have been obscured to protect my wallet).

"...it went great. I know it did. _ _ _ _ _ was invited to go to lunch and J_ _ k N_ _ _ _ _ _ _n was there, yet he stayed the full time with us. That is largely due to you guys. He was impressed with the gear, you were ready to shoot as soon as he got there, the wardrobe, and everything!"

The subject we photographed is brilliant and suffers no mistakes, no glitches, no lack of effort. He is taped or filmed in a network studio or location almost every day of his life, though he knows little about cameras, but was impressed with our RED's, our crew and when I shot the main stills, I walked over with my Contax/Phase and he said "that's a camera".

The client is good, but has high expectations, obviously can't have problems and puts a lot of faith in us, (which I appreciate), so we should do it the hard way, even if that only adds a few percent to the project.

Did it change anything? I don't know, would like to think it's our talents and crew and attitude, but with that comes the complete effort. Going further always is appreciated and once again, I'm camera agnostic and will use anything that works for me, but shooting a larger camera is as close as "I" can come to shooting in a film like style.

.........I'm wondering why you think it has anything to do with CCD over CMOS? As far as I know there are no medium format CMOS sensors on the photography market today. There are so many other factors involved that make a bigger difference in the look of a photo, AA filter, color filter tuning, and of course sensor size. I'd expect to see great midtone response from medium format of any kind.

Luke,

Of course everything you mentioned probably makes a difference, especially the lack of AA filter.

Thing is I've done about a trillion digital files and the DCS 760, Valeo, Aptus 22, p30, p30+, p21+, Leica all have a somewhat common trait when it comes to sharpening and how the file moves when you start masking and moving different tonal values around on a layered file.

I don't know because I'm not an engineer but I do see a difference in look and recently had an AD see it also (either that or it was a huge coincidence) as every image she pulled of ours for reference was shot with a ccd based camera.

Even this m8 image was on her sample list and this was not in the style of the planned shoot.

She thought it was film, I don't think digital looks like film, but I think ccd's look different.

No file is perfect, no camera does everything and obviously talent and subject have a lot to to with the image.

I still shoot 35mm, probably will always, but if my mfd backs disappeared I'd buy them or something comparable again.

IMO

BC

P.S. This ccd talk probably isn't what the mfd makers want to hear as I would imagine they're eventually moving to cmos.

That's not that interesting to me, unless the file is prettier, because I rarely use live view on any of my dslrs and even with the RED's have added EVF Bombs to get away from standing 2 ft. back and looking at a lcd screen. I like having the world shut out when I look through a camera, but hey, that's just me.

Thing is I've done about a trillion digital files and the DCS 760, Valeo, Aptus 22, p30, p30+, p21+, Leica all have a somewhat common trait when it comes to sharpening and how the file moves when you start masking and moving different tonal values around on a layered file.

[...] I do see a difference in look and recently had an AD see it also (either that or it was a huge coincidence) as every image she pulled of ours for reference was shot with a ccd based camera.

[...]I rarely use live view on any of my dslrs and even with the RED's have added EVF Bombs to get away from standing 2 ft. back and looking at a lcd screen. I like having the world shut out when I look through a camera, but hey, that's just me.

To be sure, if anyone else but you had said this, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. I think you're enough of a one-person experimental data bonanza to get engineers to run back to double-check their calculations. You've got me thinking about what reason, in principle, might account for your observations.

I also think you're an amazing photographer, and valuable source of hardcore professional advice.

BTW, I can't stand live view shooting (except for critical focus confirmation on a tripod). I have to be alone with the image, and I have to literally put my eyepoint on the spot. I've also noticed that subjects feel much more disturbed when being "shot" by someone at arm's length.

Sadly most of what I shoot is on Canon so I do not get to post here that much. I was just going to add a back to my inventory but a new project just came along and I am upgrading and buying more Canon gear to meet the needs of it. Hopefully after this next project I will move on and add a new MF system.

I promise not to bore you with more Canon photos but I thought I would add one anyway. I actually did the RAW conversion on this one in Phocus as a tryout. Not as many options as Capture One but I am fairly pleased.

Sadly most of what I shoot is on Canon so I do not get to post here that much. I was just going to add a back to my inventory but a new project just came along and I am upgrading and buying more Canon gear to meet the needs of it. Hopefully after this next project I will move on and add a new MF system.

I promise not to bore you with more Canon photos but I thought I would add one anyway. I actually did the RAW conversion on this one in Phocus as a tryout. Not as many options as Capture One but I am fairly pleased.

Thanks

Ian, this photograph has ruined my day. It's just 10.17am and I know that absolutely nothing built like that is going to pass in front of my nose today, tomorrow and almost certainly not the following days, weeks and months either.

Ian, this photograph has ruined my day. It's just 10.17am and I know that absolutely nothing built like that is going to pass in front of my nose today, tomorrow and almost certainly not the following days, weeks and months either.

Brings me to a deep question pondered by life's great philosopher, George Carlin...

1. "If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him... is he still wrong?"

But not to lose hope,

2. "After all tomorrow is another day" - Scarlett O'Hara from movie Gone With The Wind.

1. No, just taking advantage of the moment to flex his muscle; probably not even aware he's speaking out loud.

2. Always managed to avoid the movie despite the repeated best efforts of wife and daughter before every repeat of the movie, but I gather it ends with a line to the effect: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Much my own view on it, then. Had Bardot been in it, however... hell, no! I'd be that more ancient than I already am!

Whether Gable was standing in a forest at the time, they didn't tell me. He might even have been sitting on a horse. Or not.